Is your breakfast omelet harming your heart? A recent study by researchers at Western University in Canada found that the more egg yolks people ate, the thicker their artery walls became — an indicator of heart disease risk — and that the effect was almost as bad as from smoking cigarettes.

In the study, the researchers measured carotid plaque build-up in the arteries of 1,231 men and women, average age 62, who were seeking care at cardiovascular-health clinics. Participants filled out questionnaires detailing lifestyle habits including medication use, cigarette smoking and egg-yolk consumption. The researchers gauged how much people smoked and how many egg yolks they ate over time, by calculating their “pack-years” (the number of packs of cigarettes people smoked per day multiplied by the number of years they spent smoking) and “egg-yolk years” (how many egg yolks they ate per week for how many years).

After about age 40, participants’ plaque began building up steadily, but among the participants who ate the most eggs — three or more yolks per week — that build-up increased “exponentially,” the study found. As people’s egg-yolk years went up, so did their plaque accumulation — an association that was independent of factors like gender, cholesterol levels, blood pressure, smoking, body mass index and diabetes.

Among the 20% of participants who ate the most eggs, the carotid plaque build-up was about two-thirds that of the study’s heaviest smokers. The researchers concluded that the plaque increase from eating eggs “follows a similar pattern to that of cigarette smoking.”

Arterial accumulation of plaque is a key risk factor for heart attack and stroke. As plaque builds up, it thickens artery walls and narrows the space through which blood can flow, forcing the heart to pump harder. If plaques become unstable, they can break off and form clots, which can halt blood flow to either the brain or the heart, causing stroke or heart attack.

The authors argue that their findings should quell doubts over the link between high dietary cholesterol and heart disease. “The prevailing tendency to ignore dietary cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease requires reassessment, including the consumption of cholesterol from eggs,” the authors wrote.

The government’s dietary guidelines recommend that adults consume no more than 300 mg of cholesterol a day. One whole egg contains about 180 mg of cholesterol, nearly two-thirds of your daily recommended ma.

“The mantra ‘eggs can be part of a healthy diet for healthy people’ has confused the issue. It has been known for a long time that a high cholesterol intake increases the risk of cardiovascular events, and egg yolks have a very high cholesterol content,” study author Dr. David Spence, a professor of neurology at western’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, said in a statement. “In diabetics, an egg a day increases coronary risk by two- to five-fold.

However, the study’s findings raised brows among other health experts, ABC News reports:

[C]ardiologists say the study shouldn’t be taken so seriously because the research is flawed.

“This is very poor quality research that should not influence patient’s dietary choices,” said Dr. Steven Nissen, who chairs the department of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, in an email. “It is extremely important to understand the differences between ‘association’ and ‘causation’.”

Nissen said the researchers relied on patients to recall how many eggs they consumed, but asked them once and assumed it remained constant, which isn’t reliable. He said the way researchers measured patients’ plaque has come under “considerable criticism,” and that researchers failed to adjust for other dietary factors.

Indeed, it’s possible that the people who ate a lot of eggs also tended to eat a lot of other high-fat, high-salt or high-cholesterol foods. Or maybe they also tended to exercise less.

The researchers say that while further studies are needed to flesh out the association, people at risk for heart disease should still refrain from eating egg yolks on a regular basis.

I have been smoking three packs of cigarettes a day for 47 years and eating eggs all my life and just about what I wanted. I just went to the hospital and had test. I have all good cholesterol,good triglycerides and everything else is perfect. Full angiogram no clogged arteries or artery disease or blockages or any lung diseases or anything .I had all kinds of blood test for cancer and just about everything you can imagine.I had 6 ct scans from head to toe..now the only thing I worry about is the exposure to radiation from the ct's . I think you got to eat and smoke and do what you want with your life and quit worrying..the internet is trying to scare everyone to death..that is worse for you than what you eat or smoke. I had a friend that was 57 ,never smoked ,wouldn't drive scared of people killing him in a car..went to the doctor with every ache and pain..was scared to death everyday of his life about dying from a disease or this or that. Was walking down a sidewalk and a truck came up on the sidewalk and he got hit throwing him through the windshield almost decapitating him and he died...so moral of the story is life is what you make of it..eat drink and be merry and stop worrying.,,

It is known to everyone that smoking is very bad to heart and
lungs and hence lead to coronary heart disease. Similarly, researchers are
saying that eating egg yolk is very bad to heart that leads to a disease called
coronary artery disease. A research was done on 1200 patients who eat egg yolk
daily and they found that two-third of the... -

The "study" should not be called a study, it is a survey with no merit. How were the eggs cooked? Deep fried in bacon fat? Vegetable oil or were they cooked in water? What else is part of the daily diet? Lots of meat, any fish? How much red wine do you usually consume in a week? How much fish?

All I know is, I've always had a problem with my cholesterol numbers, usually hovering around 240 ... I went low carb and ate lots of red meat, eggs, cheese, and almonds while avoiding starches and sugars ... next test I was at 180 with an HDL of 85, meaning my LDL cholesterol was only slightly higher than my HDL, a ration of about 60/40. OK, this is only anecdotal, but it convinced me that carbs are the culprit. (When I eased off on the low carbs, the numbers slid back towards where they had been.) That said, I don't know that my cholesterol counts have that much to do with potential heart disease. I'm more inclined to believe the more recent theories that posit that things like stress (which I handle poorly) cause inflammation in the arteries which in turn causes the plaque to cling more readily. So many variables! And the rules keep changing! I'm more in favor of just watching my sugars and enjoying my meals.

I can say this. The more eggs a person eats, then probably the more bacon they eat. And along with that, the more butter they consume. Could it be that the exponential effects come from the fact that people who are eating eggs for breakfast routinely add bacon, sausage, buttery toast and possibly other things as well?

Question? Did they ever consider; even once! That adding exercise, taking vitamines, minerals and using organic eggs, might change the outcome? I wonder what the FDA paid them do do this study! Unbelievable!

Question? Did they ever consider; even once! That adding exercise, taking vitamines, minerals and using organic eggs, might change the outcome? I wonder what the FDA paid them do do this study! Unbelievable!

You just can't blame eggs alone. Many people live long by eating eggs. Researchers should visit a heart hospital and find out the causes for the death of patients. Most patients would have died for other reasons-- not for eating omelets.

I've read about this a while ago, and there were a lot of qualms about the validity of their claim. Although, one thing I do wonder is, if the research team behind this study helps reset their participants back to a healthier point, especially those who had a massive plaque built up?

Why would any one risk coronary artery disease by eating eggs? You have safe and healthy perfect proteins such as beans.

Chickens are caged in giant dark warehouses to produce these unhealthy

heart attack bombs and are known as the most abused animals on Earth. Many of these tortured chickens have diseases and cancer. Eggs also expose you to salmonella. Factory farm created eggs (99% of all egg production) has no use for male hatchlings. These newborn babies are thrown into giant meat grinders or suffocated in a garbage bag. This is beyond obscene cruelty.

Why would any one risk coronary artery disease by eating eggs? You have safe and healthy perfect proteins such as beans.

Chickens are caged in giant dark warehouses to produce these unhealthy

heart attack bombs and are known as the most abused animals on Earth. Many of these tortured chickens have diseases and cancer. Eggs also expose you to salmonella. Factory farm created eggs (99% of all egg production) has no use for male hatchlings. These newborn babies are thrown into giant meat grinders or suffocated in a garbage bag. This is beyond obscene cruelty.

Why would any one risk coronary artery disease by eating eggs? You have safe and healthy perfect proteins such as beans. Chickens are caged in giant dark warehouses to produce these unhealthy heart attack bombs and are known as the most abused animals on Earth. Many of these tortured chickens have diseases and cancer. Eggs also expose you to salmonella. Factory farm created eggs (99% of all egg production) has no use for male hatchlings. These newborn babies are thrown into giant meat grinders or suffocated in a garbage bag. This is beyond obscene cruelty.

Good grief, Dr. LaPuma..."poor quality...shouldn't have been published." ???

Yes, it's possible to criticize just about any research study -- and it IS possible to criticize every single diet/health study ever published. But this study is extremely useful -- not as a definitive, final word, but as far as what might be called "hypothesis generating."

The strength of the study was the robust endpoint -- artery wall thickness (as opposed to the typical, very soft endpoints of serum lipid levels, inflammatory markers, etc.). The authors took on the herculean task of measuring artery wall thickness in over 1,200 men.

Long term dietary recall studies are fraught with inexactitudes, but I'd wager that the average weekly consumption of eggs is one of the more constant features of a typical person's diet -- probably more constant, even, than breakfast meats, butter, trans fats, etc.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This is a very ordinary claim -- to wit, that dietary cholesterol can contribute to the formation of cholesterol plaques.

Of course, it's not definitive. If you really love egg yolks, then it's a free country. Continue to eat them. But there's absolutely no important dietary nutrient found in an egg yolk which is not readily available in foods without all the concentrated cholesterol. For health conscious people who do not wish to wait 20 years for this to sort itself out, there is absolutely no health downside to ordering egg white veggie omelettes, as opposed to whole egg veggie (or veggie and cheese or veggie and meat) omelettes.

i worked as a waitress at a diner in omaha for 3 years and one in florida for a year. i have a le cordon bleu culinary education and now own an organic vegetable farm.

my experience says that people who eat egg yolks eat them in combination with fatty meat, buttered toast, and potatoes fried in butter substitute (read: transfat). people who choose egg whites avoid the hashbrowns and order their toast dry. numbers don't lie. btw, very low percentage of egg white eaters (slightly higher on sanibel, fl).in addition, most of the eggs we eat are from caged birds with at high grain diet. my girls are pastured with supplemental grain mash. studies show that pastured eggs contain 1/3 less cholesterol.

Heart disease started going up in the 1950's, around the same time as natural cooking oils (coconut, palm) were pushed away fr0m us because of the encoachment of vegetable oils- corn, peanut, soy safflower, sunflower, with their manufacturers promises of better health. These new "vegetable oils" were being pushed by manfacturers because of the pant market collapse. These vegetabe oils were used in the manufacture of PAINT!, but were replaced with petroleum, which is why the vegetable oil market faced total ollapse. They told US Consumers that coconut and palm oils were unhealthy, but the opposite was true. As they forced coconut and palm oil out of the market, they replaced them with corn, peanut and safflower oil.

We now know these "healthy" vegetable oils are some of the poorest choices we can make to eat. Most vegetable oil is rancid before it hits supermarket shelvs. When it starts to break down, it turns into a stiky substance that your body cannot get rid of completely. This sticky residue will cause blockage of arteries and the subsequent health problems: notably heart attack and stroke.

On the other hand, the good oils that do not break down are olive, coconut and palm. The body can handle those oils much more efficiently, and it is why those oils are actually good for you. It is also why butter is much better for you than margarine. Bet you haven't heard that before!

This is ridiculous. I just spent the past 2.5 months eating a high protein diet and eggs were the centerpiece...I lost more body fat and gained more muscle than on any other diet in my life. Got news for you egg haters, eggs make you and keep you fit. Obviously your body loves them. :)

Why is this considered news? This kind of statment goes back to the 70's. Eggs are probably nature's most perfect source of protein and other vital nutrients. Dump meat, eat eggs, and your arteries will be just fine. Anyway, here's a theory that may have just as much merit as any other so lightly tossed around these days. Since the 70's, this cholesterol egg scare has reduced average consumption of eggs. In this same time frame, various types of old age dementias have increased. So here's a correlation! Might it just be possible then that the combination of high density nutrients found in eggs is the most easily assimilated by the brain? Could this egg speicific nutrient bath then keep the brain healthier and thus able to stave off certain old age brain dysfuntions?

If you think about how eggs are usually served in America (on a McMuffin or with a side of greasy meat and fried potatoes), it's not surprising that people who regularly consume eggs develop heart disease. You have to look at the big picture.

My favorite way to eat a whole egg is in a rice bowl with carrots, broccoli, snow peas, and chicken. Healthy and delicious!

Umm, to that I would ask you why would you risk a hundred different cancers by eating non organic fruits and vegetables that are laced with many(dozens in some cases)scientifically known carcinogenic oil based compounds???

Because we like them. And unlike the poisons in non organic fruits and vegetables causing cancer, there is no proof that they cause any health problems. they used to say they did, but they never really had proof, then when they really studied them they found that dietary cholesterol has no effect on blood cholesterol, or so much more stringent studies than this one says so.

Why was heart disease in say 50-60year old people lower a hundred years ago than now. Back then way more people ate eggs.....with bacon sausage and even steak and pork chops left over from the night before and on a near daily basis to boot. Never mind the fact that they ate butter, lard and tallow daily and in much higher quantities than we do now.

Simple. Back then the eggs and all the meat was grown completely different with no synthetic chemicals added like we do almost universally right down to our fruits and veggies.

Not to mention a lot more people(percentage of population not total numbers) worked physically demanding jobs instead of sitting behind a desk all day and now all night thanks to T.V. and the internet.

Isn't anyone the least bit curious why we need to cut back on these "bad foods" today(and indeed every study done by a reputable group shows that lowering your consumption of these animal fats has massive positive health benefits)

But in the old days when people worked hard and ate only organic foods the current massive negative affect on our health didn't really exist from eating them in higher quantities.

I call BS, and say it is NOT the food itself but something we have, in our "modern" wisdom done to change the food at a very basic level.

All these inorganic chemicals(that are actually poisonous BTW) would account for a lot, if not the vast majority of the conflicting results from various studies.

Think about it for a minute. If you study people and group them according to what they eat, exercise, etc. etc. etc, but they all eat slightly different amounts of these foods(no two people are going to have eaten EXACTLY the same quantity of every food) meaning that no two people are exposed to the exact same quantity of each poison.Fertilizers(crude oil based)Pesticides(crude oil based)not to mention various herbicides anti-fungals etc. are sprayed on our plant crops, but each type of crop receives different types or different amount, which can vary greatly especially when grown in different locations. then our food/dairy animals eat these same crops, which they are not able to digest properly resulting in myriad health problems for which they are fed and injected with all sorts of chemicals to "fix"(their given these drugs till they are slaughtered, so they are never cured) the problems caused by a diet of improper foods laced with dozens of poisonous chemicals(imagine how sick you would be, and the drugs you would need, if you only ate grasses, which is the only food a cow is supposed to eat, and the only food they can properly digest and use. Now picture the animals just as sick from only eating "human" food). And let's not forget all the synthetic chemicals given to these animals to make them grow unnaturally fast.

This difference in the amounts of each type of poisonous chemical that gets added to all the food we eat has to have a differing affect on our bodies according to how much of each one we consume and for how long we consume it. That is science at it's most basic. You would have to be a complete fool to think that these hundreds of poisonous chemicals don't have a very real and very negative affect on our physical and mental well being.

But are we as a people, willing to fork out the billions of dollars it would take to undo the unhealthy mess our food has become, mostly in the name of saving money. So in the end we, the consumers are just as guilty as is big business and government because we begged and demanded cheaper prices, and we, with our cash and our vote, rewarded those companies and politicians that gave them to us. No matter the true hidden cost.

Personally I think we are, as a people, and maybe as a species, too greedy and obsessed with our me generation selves to make it happen. We would rather have the next "big thing" in electronic toys that we can hold, play, and gratify ourselves with than to give up something that makes us happy for a short time in order to do something that would make us be healthier and live longer but gives no reward that we can feel right now.

And the saddest part is that we extend this me me me mentality to even include putting our wants over our children's NEEDS(I can here everyone with kids screaming that they don't put their wants over their children's needs right now, and they are all lying to themselves if they believe it) .

People, even most of the ones who say they can't afford the natural organic whole foods, even including the ones on food-stamps(and I don't begrudge anyone who NEEDS the help,glad to have my taxes go to help them, especially the children) buy soda and candy bars for themselves and their children, not to mention all the other non-essential junk we as Americans buy....While claiming they can't afford better food to feed to their own kids. Every dollar we waste buying junk we don't need is a dollar that could have bought better food. There are no excuses.

And for those that will try and attack me for the last 3 paragraphs I used to be just as bad as the rest of you, and I do still occasionally have a weak moment, but I have reduced my keeping up with the Joneses mentality and my need for instant gratification a great deal, But it is a hard master to break free from. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't all try. The better food you, and the ones you love, who depend on you to provide good food(but want the bad anyway)will do wonders for yours and their health in the long run.

Who says heart disease was lower in 50-60 year-old people a hundred years ago? A hundred years ago we, for the most part, didn't know what people died of. And they died a lot younger. So back to the world of skewed statistics.

I agree with much of what you said, and I wonder whether there have been any studies of Amish folks, since they live the way the rest of the country lived 200 years ago. I don't know if they pollute their livestock with chemicals though, and I don't know if they stock up on soda and candy once a month. It's worth looking into.

The other problem with our society is that we focus obsessively on extending our own lifespan rather than doing something productive and altruistic with the time we have. Humans weren't meant to live forever. Our biology and psychology is designed for a finite existence, so I'd like to see the medical community focus on quality over quantity. Too many people are just hanging on or getting by instead living life to the fullest and making a positive impact on their community.

@megan03 They did not die a lot younger, the life span of humans has not changed much in 200 years....what has happened is that fewer babies and very young people die, mothers at birth, etc etc so the averages look better.

Actually we can, and do, dig them up all the time and we an usually tell what was wrong with them.

Also people living into their 80's was quite common if they made it into adulthood and didn't get an infection or something like that.

The 2 main reasons the average age of death was so low was because it was quite normal for a couple to have 5-7 kids and have 3-5 of them die before they even made it to their teens. That will drop an average lifespan right into the toilet. then with no real way to cure infections something as simple as a paper cut on your finger could lead to your death(blood-poisoning, and you either cut the arm off soon enough or died) If you take out the people who died from infections from self inflicted wounds and the children/babies that died from childhood diseases that we now have vaccines for then the average age rises very high and our modern medicine(minus antibiotics and vaccines) has not actually given us all that much extra lifespan. From the 30's-40's that was their average it would rise to somewhere into their late 60's early 70's.We are at the late 70's for men and 80 for women. Not much of an increase for all the money we spend, not to mention that for most those later years are spent in relatively bad health consuming a ton of meds.

And let us not forget the number of people back then that died from physical trauma due t life just being more physical and dangerous. There was no "safety equipment or guards on big machinery.

No our life span has not been extended all that much at all when you figure those three things into the equation. And we do have much more heart and lung disease, not to mention cancers of all types than we did even just a few decades ago, and since we can tell by the bones what types of cancers people had(most of the time, there are a very few that leave no trace, but they are rare now and have always been) We d*amn sure have more of these diseases than a 100 years ago.

so no, we are not back to skewed statistics, you come back to the realities of what we have created for ourselves and our children all in the name of lower prices.